TCM: The Greatest Movie Channel

[Milburn Stone]

7 hours ago, bluepiano said:

I'm a giant Hitchcock fan and I've always really liked Stage Fright...I believe that Stage Fright's bad reputation is due in large part to Hitchcock himself having frequently trashed it, most notably in the classic Truffaut book-length interview.

I share your fondness for Stage Fright (despite that I can take or leave Alastair Sim) and that whole passage in Hitchcock/Truffaut never made sense to me from the get-go. Sigh. I suppose I have to put the rest of this between spoiler tags, unless and until @mariah23 (as the originator of the TCM topic) rescinds the requirement:

Spoiler

The whole idea that a "false flashback" is unacceptable, and outrageous to movie audiences of the time who stormed Hitchcock's gates, is patently ridiculous. Characters lie, and there is no substantive difference between a lie told by a character verbally and a lie told by a character that we get to see illustrated by images. If there is evidence that movie audiences reacted in fury to being "deceived" by Stage Fright, I'd sure like to see it. I've never come across any beyond Hitchcock's assertion.

[jah1986]

11 hours ago, Calvada said:

 

2.  Five Came Back (1939) - I am compelled to watch this whenever TCM airs it; really fits a lot in 75 minutes

 

I love this movie! You're right it really does fit a lot in those 75 minutes especially with the prisoner/convict (?) turning out to be the better man.  It's been way too long since I've seen this movie. Wasn't there an inferior re-make?

[Calvada]

Yes, the remake was called Back from Eternity.  TCM shows it occasionally, but it is vastly inferior to the original.  Both versions were directed by John Farrow.  If you want to see Five Came Back, mark your calendar for January 23, at 8:15 am Eastern.  TCM will be showing it then. 

[Inquisitionist]

Did anyone catch Elvis Mitchell's interview with Bill Murray from 2008 that TCM recently reran?  Only 30 minutes long, but it gave me such great appreciation for Murray's process and his knowledge of acting and moviemaking, generally.  He started out talking about a favorite obscure film, 1936's The Moon's Our Home starring Margaret Sullavan and Henry Fonda (who were already divorced from each other at the time).  He particularly enjoyed Sullavan's physical comedy work in this movie and lamented that she is largely forgotten today.  I'd never heard of TMOH and don't recall seeing it in TCM's rotation (I do a search for Henry Fonda movies on the upcoming Comcast listings from time to time).  Has anyone else seen it?

Edited January 12, 2017 by Inquisitionist

[LauraAnders]

On 2017-01-10 at 10:00 PM, Calvada said:

My five obscure movies:

1.  Went the Day Well? (1942) - such an interesting movie, actually showing British people being killed by the Germans, but making a strong statement that the Allies won the war, at a time when that was still in doubt, and that the public, not just the military, would have a role in that victory

2.  Five Came Back (1939) - I am compelled to watch this whenever TCM airs it; really fits a lot in 75 minutes

3. American Dreamer (1984) - I had such a crush on Tom Conti, and Giancarlo Giannini is hysterical in this, with each successive scene he has with JoBeth Williams

4. Yours, Mine and Ours (1968) - not really obscure, but I have a soft spot for this movie since it was the first one I ever saw in a theatre

5. Saving Grace (1986) - did I mention I had a crush on Tom Conti?  Yes, even when he's playing the Pope!

I agree with "Five Came Back". It is a wonderful film.

But I was very disappointed with "Went the Day Well". I thought it was the weakest of all the British dramas about WW2. It showed how a group of average British men developed into soldiers. But there was very little else about this movie that I found interesting. Most of the minor plot lines just seemed silly or absurd to me.

[LauraAnders]

21 hours ago, bluepiano said:

I'm a giant Hitchcock fan and I've always really liked Stage Fright. It may not be in the upper echelon of Hitch movies (ie. Vertigo, Shadow of a Doubt, Rear Window), but I enjoy it more than several that often make the "Hitchcock classic" lists. (Like Suspicion and Dial M for Murder, both of which I find stodgy and dull) . I believe that Stage Fright's bad reputation is due in large part to Hitchcock himself having frequently trashed it, most notably in the classic Truffaut book-length interview.

I think it has a genuinely clever and twisty plot, deftly blends humor and suspense, and has marvelous performances by Marlena Dietrich and the inimitable Alistair Sim. I think that Jane Wyman is very good, and if I remember correctly, there may have been a line of dialogue about her having lived in America, to explain the lack of a bona fide English accent. In any event, that doesn't bother me.

The moment when Michael Wilding turns Jane away to prevent her from seeing a gruesome sight (trying to avoid a spoiler) is one of the most genuinely tender moments in all Hitchcock. And for British TV comedy fans, note than the policeman in the scene with Marlena Dietrich is a young Ballard Berkeley, who many years later would play the dithering Major on Fawlty Towers.

I'd just like to add one comment. My favorite Hitchcock film that he directed before the "modern era" (say before 1950) is Saboteur 1942. There is another Hitchcock film with a similar name. It is "Sabotage". But IMO, it is nowhere near the quality of Saboteur. I've watched Saboteur many times and it never fails to grab my attention. Hitchcock seems to attempt to give the audience several "life lessons". Usually, I would be offended by that. But I found the lessons he presented were really special and I appreciated them all. Hitchcock was one of a kind. Probably one of the five best directors of all time and I will always be a fan of his.

[bluepiano]

13 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

I share your fondness for Stage Fright (despite that I can take or leave Alastair Sim) and that whole passage in Hitchcock/Truffaut never made sense to me from the get-go. Sigh. I suppose I have to put the rest of this between spoiler tags, unless and until @mariah23 (as the originator of the TCM topic) rescinds the requirement:

  Hide contents

The whole idea that a "false flashback" is unacceptable, and outrageous to movie audiences of the time who stormed Hitchcock's gates, is patently ridiculous.

The Usual Suspects is a movie composed almost entirely of "false flashbacks."

12 hours ago, jah1986 said:

I love this movie! You're right it really does fit a lot in those 75 minutes especially with the prisoner/convict (?) turning out to be the better man.  It's been way too long since I've seen this movie. Wasn't there an inferior re-make?

I also really like Five Came Back. The prisoner/convict is played by character actor Joseph Calleia, and it's the only movie I can think of where he's a good guy. He had a long career playing gangsters and murderers. Maybe because he was born in Malta and was "foreign" looking. That was Hollywood back then. But in Five Came Back he shows that he was capable of doing much more.

The movie has a great supporting great cast, including John Carradine, C. Aubrey Smith, and Allen Jenkins, and a young Lucille Ball, looking very lovely. The scene at the end between Smith and Elisabeth Risdon is so beautifully acted.

Edited January 12, 2017 by bluepiano

[Calvada]

I thought Went the Day Well?  was an interesting bit of propaganda, showing a community banding together against a group of German infiltrators, a movie to encourage the British people to rally together.  By the time the movie came out the worry about a possible German invasion had subsided a bit, but there was still some concern about it.  What I liked about it was that it showed a bit of reality, if I can use that word about a work of fiction, in showing casual, brutal killing as the Germans pretending to be British soldiers are found out and the town bands together to fight against them.  It was an acknowledgment that winning the war would not be easy, it would demand sacrifice.  But that's the great thing about watching movies - we all see something different! 

Bluepiano, I totally agree with you about the lead in Five Came Back (although isn't his name Chester Morris?); I never felt he deserved to win Peggy, the character played so memorably by Lucille Ball. 

[Crisopera]

LauraAnders, the problem I have with Saboteur is that the ingénue leads, Robert Cummings and Priscilla Lane, are so bland, which is unusual for Hitchcock.  Mind you, the often anthologized sequence on the Statue of Liberty is one of my favorites.

[LauraAnders]

I'm afraid I mixed up the two films "Five Came Back"  with "Three Came Home" (1950).

"Three Came Home" is a superb movie. It stars Claudette Colbert as a British Author who finds herself in a Japanese prison camp during WW2. The rest of the movie is unlike any other WW2 movie I have ever seen. But it is unforgettable and truly excellent.

I watched "Five  Came Back" yesterday and although there were some excellent performances (especially Lucille Ball), the rest of the film was just above average. It was good - for sure - but it wasn't really great. It was nowhere near as good as "Three Came Home". But this is just my opinion and I'm sure many of you may have a different opinion.

Edited January 13, 2017 by LauraAnders
She was an American author and not a British author.

[spaceghostess]

OMG. With all the time I spend on this site, how is it that I've only just discovered this forum?! My father instilled in me, pretty much from birth, a love for/obsession with classic film. Said love/obsession causes me to part with more money than my cheap soul would normally deem acceptable for the monthly sling subscription that delivers TCM to my cord-cut universe.

I'm having a ball catching up on the insightful posts here. The many great write-ups and recommendations of movies I haven't yet seen--or have seen, but should consider viewing again through a different lens (so to speak) are greatly appreciated!

I'm inspired to dash off a few lines as I munch my lunch and watch 1931's Private Lives, starring Norma Shearer and the criminally underrated Robert Montgomery. This version, is, IMHO, a charming and deft adaptation of Coward's play (despite initial reservations about Shearer's casting, Coward gave it his own stamp of approval in the end). I could write for yonks about Montgomery's intelligence and versatility (and hotness, rowr), and perhaps will in the future? Right now, however, I only have time to thank the movie gods that this puppy slipped in there before the Code stomped the sex out of everything.

There is kissing between divorced and remarried (to other people) people! Long clinches and short ones, necking, and cuddling in bed (something handled with a clever little sight gag that may have helped them squeak it past any limited enforcement that may have been going on). All the physical stuff works out quite well, as the chemistry between the leads is sizzlingly delightful. I now want to watch this and and Here Comes Mr. Jordan back-to-back, the better to enjoy the contrast between Montgomery's tough-guy comic characterization and his playboy one. He was equally adept at both, and I wish he'd made a hundred more movies than he did. A brilliant man who led a fascinating life which, as far as I know, has NOT been honored with a biography. Someone should do something about that. Maybe that someone will be me.

Anyway, thank you all for this place--I'm so happy to have found it!

Edited January 12, 2017 by spaceghostess
One doesn't have a love "with" something.

[Inquisitionist]

14 hours ago, Inquisitionist said:

Did anyone catch Elvis Mitchell's interview with Bill Murray from 2008 that TCM recently reran? 

BTW, I found this interview on youtube as well, in two pieces of about 15 minutes each, so if you missed the TCM airing but are interested, you can watch part 1 here, then go on to part 2.

[Rinaldo]

We have talked about Hitchcock here often, so I appeal to the expertise of our knowledgeable viewership here: can you help me with Notorious?

I guess I've seen it before -- each time I watch it, I recognize the early sequences and think (again), "Oh right, I have seen all this before." But it just doesn't stick with me. Despite my vows to pay strict attention THIS time and immerse myself (currently I'm watching a Blu-Ray courtesy of Netflix), my attention wanders and I decide to catch up on email or reading. I guess that means I didn't give it a fair chance to grab me, but I really do try (each time) and it just doesn't. 

Yet I have several friends who would rank this at or near the top of their Hitchcock list. What is it that makes it special? What should I be involved in? I have nothing particular to say against it (and this may be one of Ingrid Bergman's most intense and moving performances), just that I don't seem to be on its wavelength. Help!

[Milburn Stone]

5 minutes ago, Rinaldo said:

I guess I've seen it before -- each time I watch it, I recognize the early sequences and think (again), "Oh right, I have seen all this before." But it just doesn't stick with me. Despite my vows to pay strict attention THIS time and immerse myself (currently I'm watching a Blu-Ray courtesy of Netflix), my attention wanders and I decide to catch up on email or reading. I guess that means I didn't give it a fair chance to grab me, but I really do try (each time) and it just doesn't. 

Yet I have several friends who would rank this at or near the top of their Hitchcock list. What is it that makes it special? What should I be involved in? I have nothing particular to say against it (and this may be one of Ingrid Bergman's most intense and moving performances), just that I don't seem to be on its wavelength. Help!

I do find the early sequences captivating (not in the sense of "charming," but involving). I think it's the way Hitchcock gets across Bergman's amoral promiscuous party-girl nature, along with Grant's essentially immoral recruiting of her. (He's doing it for a good cause, but by seducing her under false pretenses.) This all seems somehow surprisingly frank and saucy for a movie of its time, and Hitchcock's famous ability to implicate the audience in his characters' choices is in full force.

[Wiendish Fitch]

I love the moral ambiguity that shades Notorious at every turn: Alicia may be a boozy party girl, but she does have way more principles than she'd ever admit to; Dev cares about cause and country, but he's an insensitive prick (no, being played by Cary Grant doesn't alter this fact) who mistreats Alicia; and Alex is kind, warm, charming, and adores Alicia... but he's a friggin' Nazi, and must be stopped. Notorious messes with our heads, hearts, and preconceived notions on familiar story beats, and that's why it's so re-watchable to me. When it comes to Dev and Alicia, my heart wants them to be together, but my head is screaming "Are you insane?! Run away woman, you could do so much better!" As I get older, many classic film couples strike me this way (Lili comes to mind).

[Rinaldo]

Great points, both of you, for which my thanks; but are those qualities (the frankness/sauciness, the moral ambiguity) what got you involved initially? (If so, fair enough.) As I said, I'm having trouble just paying attention, which distresses me.

I must say, the commentary on this Blu-Ray -- I'm watching it now -- is absolutely zero help. Some film professor is going on and on about the history of RKO Studios. Here are Ingrid and Cary interacting, and nothing: just the coming of sound, the effects of the Depression, the various company executives (all of that substantially earlier than this film, of course). Now, at 33 minutes, he has switched to talking about Ben Hecht. Which is all well and good, but a good commentator manages to slip such background info in at suitable slow moments, which remaining generally in touch with the happenings onscreen. This must be one of the least helpful commentary tracks around.

[Crisopera]

For me, it's the moral ambiguities.  It's amazing that Hitchcock could slip these by the censors - the bad girl heroine, the insensitive jerk hero, and the sympathetic Nazi.  Bergman and Grant have killer chemistry, and for me this is one of the most suspenseful Hitchcocks.  And that crane shot down to the key in her hand!  Brilliant.  I find the ending almost unbearable to watch - Claude Rains' striken face as he watches Bergman and Grant ride away, taking his life with them.

Rinaldo - That commentary sounds incredibly unhelpful.

Wiendish Fitch - You are not kidding about Lili!

[mariah23]

I talked to David and got the "no spoilers" tag removed.  The only reason I did it in the first place was because some people are very sensitive to having a movie they want to see spoiled, even a film that is decades old. 

[Milburn Stone]

7 minutes ago, mariah23 said:

I talked to David and got the "no spoilers" tag removed.  The only reason I did it in the first place was because some people are very sensitive to having a movie they want to see spoiled, even a film that is decades old. 

Thank you, mariah. I think it behooves us all to continue to have some sensitivity on this score--like, not to give away the surprise ending of a movie or something--but I appreciate that we can now use our discretion regarding this. 

[Charlie Baker]

I caught The Ex-Mrs. Bradford today.  This seems to be RKO's attempt to steal some Thin Man thunder--it looks like they had to borrow William Powell from MGM for the lead.  He does his usual top-notch work, and is nicely partnered with Jean Arthur, who is nicely sharp as the title character who's a little ditzier than Nora Charles.  And Eric Blore as a butler, what else? It's not quite as witty as the best of the Thin Man series, but it is fun, and the plot is kind of fun, too.

[mariah23]

1 hour ago, Milburn Stone said:

Thank you, mariah. I think it behooves us all to continue to have some sensitivity on this score--like, not to give away the surprise ending of a movie or something--but I appreciate that we can now use our discretion regarding this. 

You're welcome. 

Edited January 13, 2017 by mariah23

[Rinaldo]

2 hours ago, mariah23 said:

I talked to David and got the "no spoilers" tag removed.  The only reason I did it in the first place was because some people are very sensitive to having a movie they want to see spoiled, even a film that is decades old. 

Thank you! Like @Milburn Stone, I'll still be circumspect about giving away a twist in a movie that's famous for a surprise element -- but in general I'm glad that we can relax about this.

[SeanC]

Thoughts on a few of the films that aired tonight as part of TCM's Jane Wyman tribute:

Johnny Belinda - At last, my mother's home of Cape Breton gets to be in a Hollywood film...as a backwater full of small-minded hicks (though this is based on a real story from Prince Edward Island, where I live, so a bullet dodged there, I guess; I'm not sure why they moved the story over).  Also, not that this is unexpected for a Hollywood studio film (particularly from this period), but that is clearly not Cape Breton, as anyone who's ever been there would tell you.  Anyway, this was apparently the first Hollywood film to deal with rape, which is obviously touchy under the production code.  For all that, I think it handles the subject about as well as could be hoped for given the constraints (such as, for instance, the fact that nobody ever uses the word "rape").  Wyman is great in the half-title role (I'd also like an explanation for why the film is called that).  Charles Bickford is also great as her father (the film, creditably, finds a bit of nuance in how Belinda's own family views her; they've become rather dismissive of her by the time the story starts, but they aren't terrible or unfeeling people).  There's a definite turn toward melodrama by the end.  Some very nice photography around the climax.

The Yearling - From the opening shot of the MGM lion roaring in colour, followed by a tracking shot down a river, the movie's Technicolour cinematography is really stunning to look at (looking it up afterward, it won the Oscar for that category in 1946, well-deserved).  Compared to the above Johnny Belinda, this was clearly shot on location in Florida, and the authenticity shows.  The obvious comparison point here is to Disney's Old Yeller, which came out a decade later.  The Yearling clearly has the later film beat on technical merits, but it's also longer than it needs to be; the film is over 2 hours long, and it's the better part of an hour in before the titular fawn shows up.  Older films centered around child actors can be a dicey proposition, but the kid in this is pretty solid overall, even if there are a few awkward scenes (some of which aren't his fault; he's asked to do way too much beatific prancing about the forest with that fawn).  He definitely sells the climactic scenes (even if one is left wondering why nobody ever thought to just pen the deer up at night).  Wyman actually got a Lead Actress nomination for this, which shows how the Academy process has changed, because this really feels like a supporting role, and if this film was made today it'd absolutely be campaigned as one.  She has one really great scene at the end of the film.  Gregory Peck is pretty good, in the first of his two roles as a wise Southern dad in a coming of age movie based on a Pulitzer Prize-winning book where killing animals is discussed.

[Milburn Stone]

7 hours ago, SeanC said:

...a coming of age movie based on a Pulitzer Prize-winning book where killing animals is discussed.

A new Top-Five category! 

[LauraAnders]

@Spaceghostess

Hello. I'm very happy that you discovered this forum and that you have posted here. There are some truly great movies from yesteryear and I think you will find posts about many of them in this thread.

If you like Lucille ball, I would like to suggest some of her old films that were extremely enjoyable.

One such film is The Dark Corner (1946).  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0038453

I think there is a real good chance you will like that one. I sure did like it a lot! Lucy plays the part of a secretary to a private investigator and she is very believable in that role. You won't find any resemblence to the "I Love Lucy" character. She plays a very loyal lady and there is a real nice romance that develops between her and the P.I.  If you get a chance, please check it out. It's a real gem of a movie.

[ratgirlagogo]

On 1/12/2017 at 1:38 PM, Wiendish Fitch said:

I love the moral ambiguity that shades Notorious at every turn: Alicia may be a boozy party girl, but she does have way more principles than she'd ever admit to; Dev cares about cause and country, but he's an insensitive prick (no, being played by Cary Grant doesn't alter this fact) who mistreats Alicia; and Alex is kind, warm, charming, and adores Alicia... but he's a friggin' Nazi, and must be stopped

It's the casting that makes it for me.  Ingrid Bergman as an amoral party girl - is definitely playing against type.  It's easier to believe that she has principles - but yet you do believe her as a "boozy party girl".  Watching Cary Grant play a jerk is similarly jarring - like watching John Wayne in The Searchers and Jimmy Stewart in Vertigo - it's hard to accept these intrinsically charming actors playing assholes, which makes you pay closer attention to what's actually happening on screen, and expecting to find a surprise twist at the end (the big surprise being when it doesn't come, or sorta comes in Notorious)    As usual I love my crush Claude Rains but playing a likeable villain is one of the things he was best at doing.

Even with the "happy" ending it's hard to see Ingrid go off with Cary - I wonder what other unreasonable expectations he's going to have of her down the line.

On 1/12/2017 at 0:19 PM, spaceghostess said:

I could write for yonks about Montgomery's intelligence and versatility (and hotness, rowr)

Well first of all, welcome to my favorite board here.  And you SHOULD write about your feelings about Robert Montgomery, because I have always found his appeal a little puzzling (as have most here, IIRC) so I'd love to hear about your feelings on the subject.

 

ETA: syntax syntax syntax. sheesh.

Edited January 14, 2017 by ratgirlagogo

[prican58]

Spaceghostess...I give you Robert Montgomery.

[spaceghostess]

45 minutes ago, prican58 said:

Spaceghostess...I give you Robert Montgomery.

Oh, my. Thank you so much--I'll be in my bunk .  .  .

Edited January 14, 2017 by spaceghostess

[prican58]

You are welcome, spaceghostess. 

[spaceghostess]

3 hours ago, LauraAnders said:

 

If you like Lucille ball, I would like to suggest some of her old films that were extremely enjoyable.

One such film is The Dark Corner (1946).  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0038453

I think there is a real good chance you will like that one. I sure did like it a lot! Lucy plays the part of a secretary to a private investigator and she is very believable in that role. You won't find any resemblence to the "I Love Lucy" character. She plays a very loyal lady and there is a real nice romance that develops between her and the P.I.  If you get a chance, please check it out. It's a real gem of a movie.

I know this movie--and yup, I like it! I caught in on TCM one afternoon a couple of years ago and thoroughly enjoyed the snappy chemistry between Ball and Clifton Webb. It's one of those nifty little pictures that slipped through the cracks and feels like a treasure when one discovers it. Excellent recommendation. I'm always bowled over by just how stunning Lucille Ball was, aside from the fact that she was a really good actress.

[prican58]

Yes, I bet she would be pretty amazed at how so many have begun to appreciate her movie career seeing as how she said that she never did expect to become some huge star and she was pretty pleased with how long she lasted. She is always very interesting to me.

[Charlie Baker]

Lucille Ball was a pro throughout her film career; even though she did not welcome making The Dark Corner as it came at a difficult time for her both personally and professionally, she admits in her autobiography she was able to deliver a decent performance.  Dance, Girl, Dance, Lured (a thriller, not nearly as good as Dark Corner, but it has its moments), Without Love (in which she and Keenan Wynn do a great job as second leads to Tracy and Hepburn), are not necessarily great movies, but worth checking out, especially if you're interested in Ms. B. I think I noted here a while ago that it took her TV persona to make her a star, a persona the studios she worked for were never able to find for her.

[Brattinella]

I was channel-surfing last night and came upon Liz Taylor and Richard Burton in Cleopatra.  I was enthralled, just like I was when I saw the original in the theatre in 1964.  The costumes and sets!  The chemistry between the actors!  *SWOON*

[Bastet]

2 hours ago, Charlie Baker said:

Without Love (in which she and Keenan Wynn do a great job as second leads to Tracy and Hepburn),

I like the Hepburn/Tracy storyline in that one, but Ball and Wynn come close to stealing the film (and I'm sure some feel they do run away with it).  It's one of my favorite movie performances of hers.  I don't like I Love Lucy (in general; there are certainly individual scenes that give me a good laugh), so I'm always happy to come across Lucille Ball in a film that I do enjoy.

[LauraAnders]

On 2017-01-11 at 10:42 PM, Calvada said:

I thought Went the Day Well?  was an interesting bit of propaganda, showing a community banding together against a group of German infiltrators, a movie to encourage the British people to rally together.  By the time the movie came out the worry about a possible German invasion had subsided a bit, but there was still some concern about it.  What I liked about it was that it showed a bit of reality, if I can use that word about a work of fiction, in showing casual, brutal killing as the Germans pretending to be British soldiers are found out and the town bands together to fight against them.  It was an acknowledgment that winning the war would not be easy, it would demand sacrifice.  But that's the great thing about watching movies - we all see something different! 

Bluepiano, I totally agree with you about the lead in Five Came Back (although isn't his name Chester Morris?); I never felt he deserved to win Peggy, the character played so memorably by Lucille Ball. 

By the way, I would like to add some comments about "Went the Day Well".  I said that I didn't think it was a very good film but perhaps I should offer another film which is a much better example of a British film that was made during war time and whose subject matter was about the British coping with life in Britain during the opening stages of WW2.

The best film covering that genre that comes to my mind is "Mrs. Minever" (1942).  It stars Greer Garson, Walter Pidgeon and Teresa Wright. It deals with a young British married couple who are accosted by a Nazi paratrooper who lands near their home. Greer Garson delivers a terrific performance (as usual). But Teresa Wright only has a very small part and it's difficult to guage her talent during this film.

Teresa Wright is a terrific actress and there is another film in which she delivers a great performance that features her talent. I'd like to recommend it to any of you who enjoy Black & White films set during the 1940s. The following film won the Oscar for Best Picture in 1947. The movie is "The Best Years of Our Lives". It has a large number of stars including: Frederick March, Dana Andrews, Myrna Loy and Hoagy Charmichael.  Myrna Loy gives an outstanding performance in this film and IMO, she deserved to win the Oscar for Best Actress.  It is an American film and I'm certain that all of you who enjoy films about WW2 will enjoy this one very much - especially if you have not seen it previously.

Edited January 15, 2017 by LauraAnders

[ratgirlagogo]

17 minutes ago, LauraAnders said:

Teresa Wright is a terrific actress and there is another film in which she delivers a great performance that features her talent. I'd like to recommend it to any of you who enjoy Black & White films set during the 1940s. The following film won the Oscar for Best Picture in 1946. The movie is "The Best Years of Our Lives". It has a large number of stars including: Frederick March, Dana Andrews, Myrna Loy and Hoagy Charmichael.  Myrna Loy gives an outstanding performance in this film and IMO, she deserved to win the Oscar for Best Actress.  It is an American film and I'm certain that all of you who enjoy films about WW2 will enjoy this one very much - especially if you have not seen it previously.

This is a favorite of, I believe, everyone who posts on this board as it was at TWOP and has been discussed at length if you go back a few dozen pages.

[MissT]

We have discussed The Best Years of Our Lives many times.  It's my all time favorite- well next to The Heiress.  

Teresa Wright was great in The Little Foxes and Shadow of Doubt.  

I basically like her in everything. 

[Charlie Baker]

"In my humble opinion, the two greatest improvements in American life over the past twenty years are TCM (a quality cinematheque in everyone's living room!) and the self-sticking postage stamp." -- author Paul Auster in The New York Times Book Review

[bmoore4026]

Watching All About Eve right now.  Bette Davis is at peak beauty in this movie, at least I think so.

I often compare the behind-the-scenes shenanigans over Marvel/Fox/Sony and their movies with that of All About Eve.

-The X-Men are Margo Channing.  Once on top, but soon yesterday's news.

-The Avengers are Eve Harrington.  No one heard of them until they rode on someone else's coattails.

-Spider-Man is Bill

-The Fantastic Four is Karen Richards, screwed over seven ways to Sunday.  Also, two main characters have the surname Richards

-The Guardians of The Galaxy are the lady who was waiting in Eve Harrington's apartment and plans on doing to Eve what Eve did to Margo.  Go ahead, just picture Groot standing before all those mirrors and bowing with that award.

-And Daredevil is Marilyn Monroe's character, failing in the theater and ending up on the small screen.

The analogy may be lost on many, but it makes sense to me.

Edited January 16, 2017 by bmoore4026

[Wiendish Fitch]

1 hour ago, bmoore4026 said:

Watching All About Eve right now.  Bette Davis is at peak beauty in this movie, at least I think so.

I often compare the behind-the-scenes shenanigans over Marvel/Fox/Sony and their movies with that of All About Eve.

-The X-Men are Margo Channing.  Once on top, but soon yesterday's news.

-The Avengers are Eve Harrington.  No one heard of them until they rode on someone else's coattails.

-Spider-Man is Celeste Holm's character, screwed over seven ways to Sunday.

-The Guardians of The Galaxy are Eve Harrington's assistant, who plans on doing to Eve what Eve did to Margo.  Go ahead, just picture Groot standing before all those mirrors and bowing with that award.

-And Deadpool is Marilyn Monroe showing up for five seconds becoming the break-out star.

The analogy may be lost on many, but it makes sense to me.

Hey, it works for me!

[ratgirlagogo]

From Sam Staggs' book about All About Eve  https://www.amazon.com/All-About-Eve-Behind--Scenes/dp/0312273150/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8:

"As soon as [Bette Davis] hung up [with Daryl Zanuck] she called Mankiewicz.  He invited her to dinner to discuss Margo Channing and the shooting schedule.  No one remembered later where they ate, or what, but when decades had passed Bette still recalled what Mankiewicz told her about Margo: "He said she was the kind of dame who would treat her mink coat like a poncho!"  And in the movie she does just that.  Margo, leaving for the airport with Bill, stretches across the dressing-room chaise lounge to scoop her fur coat off the floor."

Classic.

[mariah23]

Just finished watching Singin' in the Rain on the big screen.  Wonderful as always! A little off-topic, reclining movie seats, where have you been all my life!

[prican58]

Yeah, mariah23 my dad fell asleep on one of those today. Mom and I of course were wide awake and wide eyed. Great experience but my question is has it ever been restored? I ask because I felt like the skin tones were not natural...they looked too reddish. I wish it had been in letterbox.  Still, none of that diminished the enjoyment of the musical numbers especially Make 'Em Laugh and Moses Supposes. I almost cried seeing Debbie doing the Good Morning number. It sank in that she is gone.   

[mariah23]

24 minutes ago, prican58 said:

Yeah, mariah23 my dad fell asleep on one of those today. Mom and I of course were wide awake and wide eyed. Great experience but my question is has it ever been restored? I ask because I felt like the skin tones were not natural...they looked too reddish. I wish it had been in letterbox.  Still, none of that diminished the enjoyment of the musical numbers especially Make 'Em Laugh and Moses Supposes. I almost cried seeing Debbie doing the Good Morning number. It sank in that she is gone.   

I have no idea.  Great question, though!  I got a little teary when they dedicated the movie to Debbie.

[Charlie Baker]

That Sam Staggs book is a lot of fun and great for fans of the movie. 

I saw Singin' in the Rain on the big screen at a revival theater--yes, kids, there were such things, pre-TCM :-) -- years ago and one things that really impressed me was that the camera was choreographed nearly as much as the dancers, and it was so much more evident on the big screen. As opposed to choreography through film editing.  I was always intrigued by that little jump cut in the Broadway Rhythm dance number with Gene Kelly and Cyd Charisse, and learned through TCM that no one knows how it happened and the missing frames of film were never found.  I suspect TCM used the best print available for this presentation, prican58. I wonder if the projection at the theater where you were was the problem.

Edited January 16, 2017 by Charlie Baker

[Rinaldo]

32 minutes ago, prican58 said:

I wish it had been in letterbox. 

Why?? That's not how it was filmed.

[Browncoat]

My theater was packed for the afternoon showing of Singin' In The Rain.  My only complaint is that in the intro, Ben gave away Lina's, um, vocal challenges.  When I first saw the movie (lo these many years ago), I wondered why Lina didn't seem to have any lines for the first bit, and when she finally did, it was a surprise and a revelation.  Granted, most people there had probably seen the movie before, but it seems a little spoilery if you hadn't. 

There was a little boy sitting behind me, and he just howled with laughter at Make 'Em Laugh, and Moses Supposes.  I think for Moses, it was the faces Donald O'Connor made behind the vocal coach's back that made him laugh so hard.

I also teared up when they showed the dedication screen.  And then I realized that with her death, the whole cast has left us.  :(

[prican58]

12 minutes ago, Rinaldo said:

Why?? That's not how it was filmed.

Yes, no kidding, but it could have been grand. I didn't expect it to actually be in letterbox.

Charlie Baker, it may have been the projection at the theater but it was the same place I saw The King and I and that experience was mind blowing. I am sure that was because the film was made in Cinemascope. But it's all good. I enjoyed the whole thing.

Browncoat, at least Rita Moreno is still alive even though her role was so very small. My mom didn't even recognize her.

[Milburn Stone]

24 minutes ago, prican58 said:

Yes, no kidding [that Singin' in the Rain wasn't shot in a wide-screen process], but [showing it in letterbox] could have been grand.

I don't think you would have liked the result. When you take a film shot in standard non-widescreen dimension, and show it in wide-screen, the results are necessarily one of these two: 1) Everything is taffy-pulled horizontally, so that (for instance) skinny people become fat people; or 2) The tops and bottoms of the image are cut off. A Singin' in the Rain without heads and feet would be no one's idea of a good time.

[Rinaldo]

44 minutes ago, Browncoat said:

And then I realized that with her death, the whole cast has left us.  :(

Not quite. Rita Moreno is not only still around, but actively performing, and long may she keep doing it.